EXCHANGE 


The   American    Bar  Association 


A  HUNDRED  YEARS  OF  AMERICAN 
DIPLOMACY 


A   PAPER    READ   BY 


JOHN   BASSETT   MOORE 

OF  NEW  YORK,  NBW  YORK 


Saratoga  Springs,  August  jo,  1900 


A  HUNDRED  YEARS  OF  AMERICAN 
DIPLOMACY. 

Somewhat  less  than  a  century  and  a  quarter  ago  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  States  of  America,  assembled  in 
General  Congress  at  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  declared  that 
the  thirteen  United  Colonies  possessed,  as  free  and  independ- 
ent States,  "full  power  to  levy  war,T  conclude  peace,  contract 
alliances,  establish  commence,  \and  to  do  all.  other  acts  and 
things  which  Independent  States  may '"of Bright  do."  The  period 
that  has  since  elapsed,  measured  by  the  general  duration  of 
national  life,  is  comparatively  •-'brief;  biit-its  importance  is  not 
to  be  estimated  by  length  of  years.  The  United  States  came 
into  being,  as  an  independent  nation,  on  the  eve  of  great 
mutations  in  the  world's  political  and  moral  order.  The  prin- 
ciples on  which  the  government  was  founded  were  indeed  not 
new  ;  they  had  been  proclaimed  by  philosophers  in  other  times 
and  in  other  lands ;  but  they  found  here  a  congenial  and  unpre- 
occupied  soil  and  an  opportunity  to  grow.  The  theories  of 
philosophers  became  in  America  the  practice  of  statesmen. 
The  rights  of  man  became  the  rights  of  men.  But  the  new 
nation,  though  conceived  in  liberty  and  dedicated  to  freedom, 
was  practical  in  its  aims  and  judicious  in  its  methods.  It  also 
recognized  the  right  to  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness as  belonging  to  men  not  only  as  individuals,  but  also  in 
their  aggregate  political  capacity  as  independent  nations. 
Adopting  therefore  as  its  rule  non-intervention,  it  declined  the 
proposal  of  the  revolutionary  government  in  France,  in  1793, 
for  "a  national  agreement,  in  which  two  great  peoples  shall 
suspend  their  commercial  and  political  interests,  and  establish 
a  mutual  understanding  to  defend  the  empire  of  liberty, 


wherever  it  can  be  embraced."1  Abstaining  from  active  politi- 
cal propagandism,  and  acknowledging  the  right  of  other  nations 
to  work  out  their  destiny  in  their  own  way,  but  confident  of 
the  beneficence  and  ultimate  triumph  of  its  own  principles,  it 
escaped  the  turmoils  as  well  as  the  reactions  that  come  of 
excessive  and  unregulated  zeal,  and,  by  the  example  of  order 
and  prosperity  at  home  and  the  pursuit  of  an  enlightened  and 
consistent  policy  abroad,  continued  to  uphold  the  cause  of  free 
government,  free  commerce  and  free  seas.  And  it  is  in  the 
maintenance  of  this  great  cause,  in  its  various  phases,  that  the 
United  States  has  made  its  distinctive  contribution  to  diplomacy. 
Although  we  are  particularly  concerned  on  the  present 
occasion  with  the  achievements  of  the  century  now  drawing  to 
a  close,  it  will  be  necessary,  in  order  to  avoid  an  abrupt  and 
misleading  breach  in  the  actual  continuity  of  events,  to 
recur  at  times  to  the  acts  of  the  great  men  who  endowed  our 
government  with  its  original  form  and  purpose.  At  the  very 
outset  they  looked  abroad  with  a  view  to  enter  into  relations 
with  other  governments.  Four  months  before  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  an  agent  was  sent  to  France  by  the  Conti- 
nental Congress  with  suitable  instructions,  perhaps  not  the  least 
onerous  of  which  was  the  injunction  to  acquire  "Parisian 
French."2  Six  months  later  the  Congress  adopted  a  plan  of 
a  treaty.3  Comprehensive  in  scope  and  far-reaching  in  its 
aims,  this  remarkable  state  paper  stands  as  a  monument  to  the 
broad  and  sagacious  views  of  the  men  who  framed  it  and  gave 
it  their  sanction.  Many  of  its  provisions  have  found  their 
way,  often  in  identical  terms,  into  the  subsequent  treaties  of 
the  United  States ;  while,  in  its  proposals  for  the  abolition  of 

1  Am.  State  Papers,  For.  Eel.  I.  708. 

2  The  agent  was  Silas  Deane.     His  instructions,  bearing  date  March  3, 
1776,  were  signed  by  B.  Franklin,  Benj.  Harrison,  John  Dickinson,  Robert 
Morris  and  John  Jay,  of  the  Committee  of  Secret  Correspondence.    The 
objects  of  his  mission  were  to  obtain  military  supplies  and  to  prepare  the 
way,  in   case  independence  should  be  declared,  for  the  conclusion  of  a 
treaty.     (Dip.  Cor.  Am.  Rev.,  Wharton's  edition,  II.  78.) 

8  Secret  Journals  of  Congress,  II.  6,  7-25. 


3 

discriminating  duties  that  favored  the  native  in  matters  of 
commerce  and  navigation,  it  levelled  a  blow  at  the  exclusive 
system  then  prevailing,  and  anticipated  by  forty  years  the  first 
successful  effort  to  incorporate  into  a  treaty  the  principle  of 
equality  and  freedom,  on  which  those  proposals  were  based.1 

Prior  to  1789,  the  United  States  entered  into  fourteen 
treaties.  Six  of  the  fourteen  were  with  France,  but  a  major- 
ity of  all  were  negotiated  and  signed  in  that  country,  at  Paris 
or  at  Versailles.  Eight  were  subscribed,  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States,  by  two  or  more  plenipotentiaries;  and  among 
their  names  we  find,  either  alone  or  in  association,  that  of 
Franklin,  ten  times ;  the  name  of  Adams,  seven  times ;  the 
name  of  Jefferson,  three  times ;  and  that  of  Jay,  who  shared 
with  Adams  and  Franklin  the  burden  of  the  peace  negotiations 
with  Great  Britain,  twice.  These  early  treaties  covered  a  wide 
range  of  subjects,  embracing  not  only  war  and  peace,  but  also 
political  alliance,  pecuniary  loans,  commercial  intercourse,  and 
the  rights  of  consuls.2  Among  their  various  stipulations,  we 
may  find  provisions  for  liberty  of  conscience,3  for  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  droit  d'aubaine  and  droit  detraction,  and  for  the 
removal,  generally,  of  the  disability  of  the  alien  to  dispose  of 

1  See  Notes  upon  the  Foreign  Treaties  of  the  United  States,  by  J.  C. 
Bancroft  Davis,  Treaty  Volume,  1776-1887,  pp.  1219-1220 ;  and  the  treaty 
of  commerce  and  navigation  with  Great  Britain,  concluded  Dec.  22,  1815. 

2  The  treaties  and  conventions  prior  to  1789,  grouped  under  the  coun- 
tries with  which  they  were  concluded,  were:     France:  Amity  and  Com- 
merce, February  6,  1778  ;  Alliance,  February  6,  1778 ;  Separate  and  Secret 
Act  reserving  to  the  King  of  Spain  the  right  to  accede  to  the  Alliance, 
February  6,  1778 ;   Contract  for  the  Payment  of  Loans,  July  16,  1782; 
Contract  for  a  New  Loan  and  the  Payment  of  Old  Ones,  February  25, 
1783 ;  Consular  Convention,  November  14,  1788.    Great  Britain  :  Provis- 
ional  Articles   of  Peace,  November  30,  1782;    Armistice,   January  20, 
1783  ;  Definitive  Treaty  of  Peace,  September  3, 1783.     Morocco,  Peace  and 
Friendship,    January    1787.     The  Netherlands:    Amity  and   Commerce, 
October  8,  1782;    Convention  Concerning   Recaptures,  October  8,  1782. 
Prussia,  Amity  and  Commerce,  September  10,  1785.      Sweden,  Amity  and 
Commerce,  April  3,  1783. 

3  Netherlands,  1782,  Art.  IV. ;   Prussia,  1785,  Art.  XL  ;   Sweden,  1783, 
Art.  V. 


his  goods  and  effects,  movable  or  even  immovable,  by  testa- 
ment, donation  or  otherwise.1  In  one  instance  it  is  agreed 
that,  if  differences  shall  arise  in  consequence  of  an  infraction 
of  the  treaty,  no  appeal  shall  be  made  to  arms  till  a  friendly 
arrangement  shall  have  been  proposed  and  rejected.2  Stipu- 
lations for  the  mitigation  of  the  evils  of  war  are  numerous. 
A  fixed  time  is  allowed,  in  the  unfortunate  event  of  hostilities, 
for  the  sale  or  withdrawal  of  goods ; 3  provision  is  made  for 
the  humane  treatment  of  prisoners  of  war ; 4  the  exercise  of 
visit  and  search  at  sea  is  regulated  and  restrained ; 5  the  ac- 
ceptance by  a  citizen  of  the  one  country  of  a  privateering 
commission  against  the  inhabitants  of  the  other  or  their  prop- 
erty, when  the  two  contracting  parties  are  at  peace,  is  made 
piracy ; 6  and  not  only  is  contraband  carefully  defined,  some- 
times both  positively  and  negatively,  so  as  to  limit  its  scope,7 
but  in  the  treaty  with  Prussia  it  is  declared  that  no  articles, 
not  even  arms  and  munitions  of  war,  shall  "  be  deemed  con- 
traband, so  as  to  induce  confiscation  or  condemnation  and  a 
loss  of  property  to  individuals,"  but  that,  if  captured  and 
taken,  they  shall  be  paid  for  at  their  full  value,  "according  to 
the  current  price  at  the  place  of  destination,"  while,  if  they 
are  merely  detained,  compensation  must  be  made  for  the  loss 
thereby  occasioned.8  In  the  same  treaty  there  stood  another 
clause,  exempting  all  merchant  and  trading  vessels  from 

1  France,  Amity  and  Commerce,  1778,   Art.  XI. ;   Netherlands,  1782, 
Art.  VI. ;  Prussia,  1785,  Art.  X. ;  Sweden,  1783,  Art.  VI. 

2  Morocco,  1787,  Art.  XXIV. 

3  France,  Amity  and  Commerce,  1778,  Art-  XX. ;   Morocco,  1787,  Art. 
XXIV.;  Netherlands,  1782,  Art.  XVIII.;  Prussia,   1785,   Art.  XXIII.; 
Sweden,  1783,  Art.  XXII. 

4  Prussia,  1785,  Art.  XXIV. 

6  France,  Amity  and  Commerce,  1778,  Arts.  XIII.,  XXVII. ;  Morocco, 
1787,  Arts.  V.,  XII. ;  Netherlands,  1782,  Art.  XI. ;  Prussia,  1785,  Art.  XV. ; 
Sweden,  1783,  Arts.  XIII.,  XXV. 

6  France,  Amity  and  Commerce,  1778,  Art.  XXI. ;  Netherlands,  1782, 
Art.  XIX. ;  Prussia,  1785,  Art.  XX. ;  Sweden,  1783,  Art  XXIII. 

7  France,  Amity  and  Commerce,  1778,  Art.  XXIV. ;  Netherlands,  1782, 
Art.  XXIV. ;  Sweden,  1783,  Arts.  IX.,  X. 

8  Art.  XIII. 


molestation  in  time  of  war.1  These  clauses  were  far  in  ad- 
vance of  the  international  law  of  the  time.  They  represented 
an  aspiration ;  but,  if  intended  also  as  a  prophecy,  they  yet 
remain  for  the  most  part  unverified  and  unfulfilled,  though  they 
are  by  no  means  discredited. 

There  is  yet  another  thing  for  which  we  are  indebted  in  no 
small  measure  to  the  men  who  laid  the  foundations  of  our  sys- 
tem, and  that  is  a  certain  simplicity  and  directness  in  the 
conduct  of  negotiations.  Observant  of  the  proprieties  and 
courtesies  of  intercourse,  but  having,  as  John  Adams  once 
declared,  "no  notion  of  cheating  anybody,"  they  relied  rather 
upon  the  strength  of  their  cause,  frankly  and  clearly  argued, 
than  upon  a  subtle  diplomacy  for  the  attainment  of  their 
ends.  Nor  did  the  framework  of  government  subsequently 
adopted  by  them  admit  of  the  practice  of  secrecy  and  reserve, 
such  as  characterized  the  personal  diplomacy  of  monarchs 
whose  tenure  was  for  life,  and  who  were  unvexed  by  popular 
electorates  and  representative  assemblies.  Hence,  as  it  was  in 
the  beginning,  so  American  diplomacy  has  in  the  main  continued 
to  be,  a  simple,  direct  and  open  diplomacy,  the  example  of 
which  has  exercised  a  potent  influence  on  the  development  of 
modern  methods. 

Soon  after  the  organization  of  permanent  government  under 
the  Constitution,  it  became  necessary  to  act  upon  two  questions 
of  foreign  policy  of  more  than  ordinary  importance.  The  first 
was  that  of  recognizing  the  republic  proclaimed  in  France  by 
the  National  Convention.  The  position  of  the  United  States 
on  this  question  was  defined  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  as  Secretary  of 
State,  in  an  instruction  which  has  often  been  cited.2  "  When 
principles  are  well  understood,"  said  Mr.  Jefferson,  •'  their 
application  is  less  embarrassing.  We  surely  cannot  deny  to 
any  nation  that  right  whereon  our  own  government  is  founded, 
that  every  one  may  govern  itself  according  to  whatever  form 

1  Art.  XXHI. 

2  Mr.  Jefferson,  Sec.  of  State,  to  Gouverneur  Moms,  Minister  to  France, 
March  12,  1793,  Ford's  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  VI.  199. 


6 

it  pleases,  and  change  these  forms  at  its  own  will ;  and  that  it 
may  transact  its  business  with  foreign  nations  through  whatever 
organ  it  thinks  proper,  whether  king,  convention,  assembly, 
committee,  president  or  anything  else  it  may  choose.  The  will 
of  the  nation  is  the  only  thing  essential  to  be  regarded."  In 
a  word,  the  United  States  maintained  that  the  true  test  of  a 
government's  title  to  recognition  is  not  the  theoretical  legitimacy 
of  its  origin,  but  the  mere  fact  of  its  existence  as  the  apparent 
exponent  of  the  popular  will.  This  principle,  though  it  nec- 
essarily found  little  support  in  Europe  in  1793,  has  proved  to 
be  of  the  highest  practical  value ;  for  not  only  has  it  continued 
to  guide  the  course  of  the  United  States,  but  it  has  also  become 
the  generally  accepted  rule  of  international  conduct. 

The  other  great  question  to  which  we  have  adverted  was  that 
of  the  course  which  the  United  States  should  pursue  in  the  first 
general  European  war,  growing  out  of  the  French  Revolution. 
In  an  early  stage  of  that  conflict,  the  government,  after  grave 
deliberation,  resolved  to  preserve  a  neutral  position.1  With  this 
decision  there  began  the  great  struggle  concerning  neutrality, 
whose  concluding  chapter  may  be  found  only  in  the  Treaty  of 
Washington  of  1871  and  the  arbitration  at  Geneva.  The 
determination  to  be  neutral  involved  both  the  maintenance  of 
rights  and  the  performance  of  duties ;  but  neither  the  rights 
nor  the  duties  of  neutrality  had  ever  been  clearly  and  compre- 
hensively defined.  While  publicists  had  laid  down  on  the 
subject,  with  more  or  less  doubt  and  hesitation,  certain  general 
principles,  the  practice  of  governments  had  been  fitful  and  uncer- 
tain, and  there  existed  no  recognized  standard  of  neutral  obliga- 
tions. The  establishment  of  such  a  standard  fell  to  the  lot  of 
the  United  States.  Writing  on  June  5,  1793,  to  M.  Genet, 
the  French  minister,  who  had,  on  his  arrival  in  the  United 
States,  issued  commissions  to  American  citizens  under  which 

1  Washington's  neutrality  proclamation  of  April  22,  1793,  and  its 
history  may  be  found  in  Moore,  International  Arbitrations,  IV.  3968 ;  V. 
4406  et  seq.  This  work  will  hereafter  be  cited  as  "  International  Arbitra- 
tions. " 


privateers  were  fitted  out  to  prey  on  English  commerce,  Mr. 
Jefferson,  as  Secretary  of  State,  declared  that  it  was  "the 
right  of  every  nation  to  prohibit  acts  of  sovereignty  from  heing 
exercised  by  any  other  within  its  limits,  and  the  duty  of  a 
neutral  nation  to  prohibit  such  as  would  injure  one  of  the 
warring  Powers;"  that  "the  granting  military  commissions, 
within  the  United  States,  by  any  other  authority  than  their 
own,"  was  "  an  infringement  on  their  sovereignty,  and  particu- 
larly so  when  granted  to  their  own  citizens,  to  lead  them  to 
commit  acts  contrary  to  the  duties  they  owe  their  own 
country;"  and  that  "the  departure  of  vessels,  thus  illegally 
equipped,  from  the  ports  of  the  United  States,"  would  be  but 
an  act  of  respect  and  was  required  as  an  evidence  of  neutrality.1 
Somewhat  later  Mr.  Jefferson  informed  M.  Genet  that  the 
President  considered  the  United  States  "  as  bound,  *  *  * 
in  conformity  to  the  laws  of  neutrality,  to  effectuate  the 
restoration  of,  or  to  make  compensation  for,  prizes  which  shall 
have  been  made  of  any  of  the  parties  at  war  with  France 
subsequent  to  the  5th  day  of  June  last  by  privateers  fitted  out 
of  our  ports ;"  that  it  was  consequently  expected  that  he  would 
"cause  restitution  to  be  made"  of  all  prizes  so  taken  and 
brought  in  subsequent  to  that  day,  in  defect  of  which  the 
President  would  consider  it  incumbent  upon  the  United  States 
"  to  indemnify  the  owners  of  those  prizes,  the  indemnification 
to  be  reimbursed  by  the  French  nation;"  and  that,  "besides 
taking  efficacious  measures  to  prevent  the  future  fitting  out  of 
privateers  in  the  ports  of  the  United  States,  they  will  not  give 
asylum  therein  to  any  which  shall  have  been  at  any  time  so 
fitted  out,  and  will  cause  restitution  of  all  such  prizes  as  shall 
hereafter  be  brought  within  their  ports  by  any  of  the  said 
privateers."2  These  declarations  were  amplified  in  a  note  to 
the  British  minister  ;3  and  still  later,  in  an  instruction  to  Mr. 
Morris,  then  United  States  minister  to  France,  Mr.  Jefferson 

1  Am.  State  Papers,  For.  Bel.  I.  150;  International  Arbitrations,  I.  312. 

2  Am.  State  Papers,  For.  Bel.  I.  167 ;  International  Arbitrations,  I.  313. 

3  Mr.  Jefierson  to  Mr.  Hammond,  Sept.  7,  1793,  Am.  State  Papers,  For. 
Eel.  I.  174 ;  International  Arbitrations,  I.  314. 


8 

farther  declared  "  that  a  neutral  nation  must,  in  all  things  re- 
lating to  the  war,  observe  an  exact  impartiality  towards  the 
parties ;  that  favors  to  one  to  the  prejudice  of  the  other  would 
import  a  fraudulent  neutrality,  of  which  no  nation  would  be  the 
dupe ;  that  no  succor  should  be  given  to  either,  unless  stipulated 
by  treaty,  in  men,  arms,  or  anything  else,  directly  serving 
for  war ;  that  the  raising  of  troops  being  one  of  the  rights  of 
sovereignty,  and  consequently  appertaining  exclusively  to  the 
nation  itself,  no  foreign  Power  or  person  can  levy  men,  within 
its  territory,  without  its  consent,  *  *  *  ;  that  if  the  United 
States  have  a  right  to  refuse  permission  to  arm  vessels  and 
raise  men  within  their  ports  and  territories,  they  are  bound  by 
the  laws  of  neutrality  to  exercise  that  right,  and  to  prohibit 
such  armaments  and  enlistments."1  To  ensure  the  enforcement 
of  these  views  instructions  were  issued  by  Alexander  Hamilton, 
then  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  the  collectors  of  customs  ;2 
and  Congress  passed  the  first  Neutrality  Act,  which  forbade 
within  the  United  States  the  acceptance  and  exercise  by  a 
citizen  thereof  of  a  commission,  the  enlistment  of  men,  the 
fitting  out  and  arming  of  vessels,  the  augmenting  or  increas- 
ing the  force  of  armed  vessels,  and  the  setting  on  foot  of 
military  expeditions,  in  the  service  of  any  prince  or  state  with 
which  the  United  States  was  at  peace.3  In  due  season  com- 
pensation was  made  to  British  subjects,  in  conformity  with  the 
principles  previously  acknowledged,  for  injuries  inflicted  by 
French  privateers  in  violation  of  American  neutrality.4 

"  The  policy  of  the  United  States  in  1793,"  says  one  of  the 
greatest  of  English  writers  on  international  law,  u  constitutes 
an  epoch  in  the  development  of  the  usages  of  neutrality. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  intended  and  believed  to 
give  effect  to  the  obligations  then  incumbent  upon  neutrals. 
But  it  represented  by  far  the  most  advanced  existing  opinions 
as  to  what  those  obligations  were ;  and  in  some  points  it  even 

1  Am.  State  Papers,  For.  Eel.  I.  168. 

2  International  Arbitrations,  IV.  3971. 

3  Act  of  June  5,  1794.     Int.  Arbitrations,  IV.  3978  et  seq. 

4  International  Arbitrations,  I.  343. 


went  further  than  authoritative  international  custom  has  up  to 
the  present  day  advanced.  In  the  main  however  it  is  identi- 
cal with  the  standard  of  conduct  which  is  now  adopted  by  the 
community  of  nations."1  But,  upon  the  foundations  thus 
surely  laid,  there  was  yet  to  be  reared  a  superstructure.  The 
act  of  1794,  which  was  to  remain  in  force  for  only  a  limited 
term,  was  afterwards  extended,2  and  was  then  continued  in 
force  indefinitely.3  An  additional  act  was  passed  in  1817,4 
but  this,  together  with  all  prior  legislation  on  the  subject,  was 
repealed  and  superseded  by  the  comprehensive  statute  of  April 
20,  1818,5  the  provisions  of  which  are  now  embodied  in  the 
Revised  Statutes.6  An  act  similar  in  its  prohibitions,  though 
less  effective  in  its  administrative  powers,  was  passed  by  the 
British  parliament  in  the  following  year ;  laws  and  regulations 
were  from  time  to  time  adopted  by  other  governments ;  and 
the  duties  of  neutrality  became  a  fixed  and  determinate  part  of 
international  law.  The  supreme  test  of  the  system,  as  the 
ultimate  standard  of  national  obligation  and  responsibility, 
was  made  in  the  case  of  the  Alabama  Claims,  and  was  made 
successfully.  By  Article  VI.  of  the  treaty  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain,  concluded  at  Washington,  May  8, 
1871,  for  the  settlement  of  those  claims,  it  was  agreed  that  "a 
neutral  government  is  bound — 

u  First,  to  use  due  diligence  to  prevent  the  fitting  out,  arm' 
ing,  or  equipping,  within  its  jurisdiction,  of  any  vessel  which 
it  has  reasonable  ground  to  believe  is  intended  to  cruise  or  to 
carry  on  war  againt  a  Power  with  which  it  is  at  peace :  and 
also  to  use  like  diligence  to  prevent  the  departure  from  its 

1  Hall,  Int.  Law,  4th  ed.,  p.  616. 

2  Act  of  March  2,  1797,  1  Stats,  at  L.  497. 
«  Act  of  April  24, 1800,  2  Stats,  at  L.  54. 

4  Act  of  March  3,  1817,  3  Stats,  at  L.  370. 

5  3  Stats,  at  L.  449. 

6  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States,  Title  LXVIL,  Sections  5281- 
5291.     The  things  forbidden  by  the  act  of  1818  are  summarized  in  the 
neutrality  proclamation  issued  by  President  Grant,  Oct.  8,  1870,  with  ref- 
erence to  the  Franco-German  War.     (16  Stats,  at  L.  1132.) 


10 

jurisdiction  of  any  vessel  intended  to  cruise  or  carry  on  war  as 
above,  such  vessel  having  been  specially  adapted,  in  whole  or 
in  part,  within  such  jurisdiction,  to  warlike  use. 

"  Secondly,  not  to  permit  or  suffer  either  belligerent  to  make 
use  of  its  ports  or  waters  as  the  base  of  naval  operations  against 
the  other,  or  for  the  purpose  of  the  renewal  or  augmentation 
of  military  supplies  or  arms,  or  the  recruitment  of  men. 

"  Thirdly,  to  exercise  due  diligence  in  its  own  ports  and 
waters,  and,  as  to  all  persons  within  its  jurisdiction,  to  prevent 
any  violation  of  the  foregoing  obligations  and  duties." 

The  British  plenipotentiaries,  by  command  of  their  govern- 
ment, declared  that  they  assented  to  these  rules  as  a  means  of 
strengthening  friendly  relations  and  of  making  satisfactory 
provision  for  the  future,  and  not  as  a  statement  of  the  princi- 
ples of  international  law  which  were  in  force  at  the  time  when 
the  claims  arose.  Into  this  question  it  is  unnecessary  now  to 
enter.  At  the  present  day  the  substance  of  the  rules  is 
uncontested.1 

The  struggle  of  the  United  States  for  neutral  rights  origin- 
ated in  the  same  great  European  conflict  as  the  controversy 
respecting  neutral  duties.  By  a  decree  of  the  National  Con- 
vention of  May  9,  1793,  the  commanders  of  French  ships  of 
war  and  privateers  were  authorized  to  seize  and  bring  in 
merchant  vessels  which  were  laden,  either  wholly  or  in  part, 
with  provisions,  bound  to  an  enemy's  port,  or  with  merchandise 
belonging  to  an  enemy.  The  merchandise  of  an  enemy  was 
declared  to  be  "lawful  prize,"  but  provisions,  if  the  property  of 
a  neutral,  were  to  be  paid  for,  and  an  allowance  was  to  be  made 
in  either  case  for  freight  and  for  the  vessel's  detention.  This 
decree,  which  was  defended  on  the  ground  of  a  scarcity  of 
provisions  in  France,  ran  counter  to  the  views  of  the  United 
States  concerning  the  freedom  of  trade  in  provisions,  and,  so 
far  as  it  affected  American  vessels,  to  the  stipulation  in  the  treaty 
between  the  two  countries  for  the  freedom  of  enemy  goods  on 

1  Kivier,  Principes  du  Droit  des  Gens,  II.  408 ;  International  Arbitra- 
tions, I.  670  et  seq. 


11 

neutral  ships.  The  operation  of  the  decree  was  at  one  time 
declared  to  be  suspended  as  to  American  vessels,  but  it  was 
soon  reestablished,  and  subsequently  other  decrees,  yet  more 
injurious,  were  adopted.1  Meanwhile,  the  commanders  of 
British  cruisers  were  authorized  to  seize  and  bring  in  all  ves- 
sels laden,  wholly  or  in  part,  with  corn,  flour  or  meal,  bound 
either  to  a  port  in  France  or  to  a  port  occupied  by  the  French 
armies,  in  order  that  such  corn,  flour  or  meal  might  be  pur- 
chased for  the  British  government  and  the  vessel  released  with 
an  allowance  for  freight,  or  in  order  that  the  master  might,  on 
giving  due  security,  be  allowed  to  dispose  of  his  cargo  in  the 
port  of  some  country  in  amity  with  Great  Britain.2  This 
order,  as  in  the  case  of  the  French  decree,  was  followed  by 
others  yet  more  obnoxious.  Against  all  these  measures  the 
United  States  protested,  both  by  word  and  by  deed.  From 
Great  Britain  a  large  pecuniary  indemnity  was  obtained.3 
The  controversy  with  France,  which  involved  many  irritating 
questions,  culminated  in  the  state  of  limited  war  which  pre- 
vailed from  1798  to  1800.4 

The  respite  which  commerce  enjoyed  from  belligerent  depre- 
dations after  the  Peace  of  Amiens  was  of  brief  duration,  and 
the  renewal  of  the  war  was  ere  long  followed  by  measures 
which,  though  not  wholly  unprefigured,  retain  in  the  history 
of  belligerent  pretensions  an  unhappy  preeminence.  The 
British  government,  in  1806,  in  retaliation  for  a  decree  of 
Prussia  excluding  British  trade,  declared  the  mouths  of  the 
Ems,  Weser,  Elbe,  and  Trave  to  be  in  a  state  of  blockade. 
Toward  the  end  of  the  same  year  Napoleon  declared  the  British 
Isles  to  be  in  a  state  of  blockade,  and  all  commerce  and  cor- 
respondence with  them  to  be  prohibited.5  Great  Britain  then 

1  International  Arbitrations,  V.  4412  et  seq. 

2  Order  in  Council  of  June  8,  1793,  International  Arbitrations,  I.  300 
et  seq.     The  word  "corn,"  in  this  order,  comprehends  cereals  generally,  as 
wheat,  barley,  rye  and  oats,  and  more  especially  wheat. 

3  International  Arbitrations,  I,  341-344. 

4  International  Arbitrations,  V.  4415  et  seq. 

5  Berlin  Decree,  Nov.  21,  1806. 


12 

issued  an  order  in  council  forbidding  neutral  vessels  to  trade 
between  ports  in  the  control  of  France  or  her  allies,1  and  still  later 
another  forbidding  them  to  trade,  without  a  clearance  obtained 
in  a  British  port,  not  only  with  the  ports  of  France  and  her 
allies,  but  also  with  any  port  in  Europe  from  which  the  British 
flag  was  excluded.2  Napoleon's  answer  was  the  Milan  Decree,3 
by  which  it  was  declared  that  every  vessel  that  had  submitted 
to  search  by  an  English  ship,  or  consented  to  a  voyage  to 
England,  or  paid  any  tax  to  the  English  government,  and 
every  vessel  that  should  sail  to  or  from  a  port  in  Great  Britain 
or  her  possessions,  or  in  any  country  occupied  by  British 
troops,  should  be  deemed  good  prize.  These  measures,  with 
their  bald  assertions  of  paper  blockades  and  sweeping  denials 
of  the  rights  of  neutrality,  the  United  States,  as  practically  the 
only  remaining  neutral,  met  with  protests,  with  embargoes, 
with  non-intercourse,  and  finally,  in  the  case  of  Great  Britain, 
which  was  aggravated  by  the  question  of  impressment,  with 
war,4  while  from  France  a  considerable  indemnity  was  afterwards 
obtained  by  treaty.5  The  pretensions  against  which  the  United 
States  contended  are  no  longer  justified  on  legal  grounds.  It 
is  now  universally  admitted  that  a  blockade,  in  order  to  be  valid, 
must  be  actually  maintained  by  a  force  sufficient  to  render 
access  to  the  blockaded  place  dangerous.  The  right  of  neutrals 
to  trade  with  belligerents  is  acknowledged,  subject  only  to  the 
law  of  contraband  and  of  blockade.  The  claim  of  impress- 
ment is  no  longer  asserted. 

With  the  claim  of  impressment  was  associated  the  question 
of  visitation  and  search.  It  is  conceded  that  the  merchant 
vessels  of  a  neutral  nation  may  be  visited  and  searched  on  the 
high  seas  in  time  of  war  by  a  belligerent  cruiser  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  whether  they  are  engaged  in  violating 
the  laws  of  war,  particularly  in  relation  to  contraband  and 

1  Order  in  Council  of  Jan.  6,  1807. 

2  Order  in  Council  of  Nov.  11,  1807. 

3  Dec.  17,  1807. 

4  International  Arbitrations,  V.  3447  et  seq. 

5  Treaty  of  July  4,  1831.     See  International  Arbitrations,  V.  4460. 


13 

blockade.  The  United  States  resisted  the  perversion  of  this 
right  to  other  ends,  and  denied  the  existence,  apart  from 
treaty,  of  any  right  of  search  in  time  of  peace.  •  In  1858 
the  Senate  unanimously  resolved  "  that  American  vessels  on 
the  high  seas,  in  time  of  peace,  bearing  the  American  flag, 
remain  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  country  to  which  they 
belong,  and  therefore  any  visitation,  molestation,  or  detention 
of  such  vessels  by  force,  or  by  the  exhibition  of  force,  on  the 
part  of  a  foreign  power,  is  in  derogation  of  the  sovereignty 
of  the  United  States."  "After  the  passage  of  this  resolu- 
tion," says  Mr.  Fish,  "  Great  Britain  formally  recognized  the 
principle  thus  announced,  and  other  maritime  powers,  and 
writers  on  international  law,  all  assert  it."1 

While  maintaining  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  the  United 
States  has  also  contended  for  the  free  navigation  of  the 
natural  channels  by  which  they  are  connected.  On  this  prin- 
ciple it  led  in  the  movement  that  brought  about  the  abolition 
of  the  Danish  Sound  Dues.2  An  artificial  channel  neces- 
sarily involves  special  consideration,  but,  reasoning  by  analogy, 
Mr.  Clay,  as  Secretary  of  State,  declared  that  if  a  canal 
to  unite  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  oceans  should  ever  be  con- 
structed, "the  benefits  of  it  ought  not  to  be  exclusively 
appropriated  to  any  one  nation,  but  should  be  extended  to 
all  parts  of  the  globe  upon  the  payment  of  a  just  compen- 
sation or  reasonable  tolls."  This  principle  was  approved  by 
the  Senate  in  1835,  and  by  the  House  of  Representatives  in 
1839,  and  was  incorporated  in  the  Clay  ton-Bui  wer  treaty  in 
1850.  It  is  also  embodied  in  the  pending  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty.  It  forms  the  basis  of  the  treaty  concluded  at  Constan- 
tinople in  1888,  between  the  leading  maritime  powers  of 
Europe,  in  relation  to  the  Suez  Canal. 

1  Foreign    Relations  of  the  United   States,  1874,    p.  963.     8ee,  also, 
Wharton'u   Int.   Law  Digest,  III.    122   et  seq.      Exceptional  cases,    such 
as  that  of  piracy,  or  of  strictly  necessary  and  emergent  self-deft  nse,  it  is 
impossible  within  the  limits  of  the  present  paper  to  discuss. 

2  Int.  Law  Digest,  I.  Sec,  29. 


14 

Nor  should  we  omit  to  mention,  in  connection  with  the 
freedom  of  the  seas,  the  subject  of  the  free  navigation  of  inter- 
national rivers.  This  principle,  consecrated  in  the  acts  of 
the  Congress  of  Vienna,1  has  been  consistently  advocated  by  the 
United  States,  and  has  been  embodied  in  various  forms  in 
several  of  its  treaties.2  Among  these  may  be  cited  the  treaty 
of  1853  with  the  Argentine  Confederation,  conceding  "the 
free  navigation  of  the  rivers  Parana  and  Uruguay  *  *  *  to 
the  merchant  vessels  of  all  nations;  "  of  1858  with  Bolivia, 
declaring  the  Amazon  and  La  Plata,  with  their  tributaries,  to 
be,  "in  accordance  with  fixed  principles  of  international  law, 
*  *  *  channels  opened  by  nature  for  the  commerce  of  all 
nations;"  of  1859  with  Paraguay,  extending  to  "the  mer- 
chant flag  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States"  the  free 
navigation  of  the  Paraguay  and  Parana;  and  of  1871  with 
Great  Britain,  declaring  the  navigation  of  the  rivers  St.  Law- 
rence, Yukon,  Porcupine  and  Stikine  to  be  "forever  free 
and  open  for  purposes  of  commerce"  to  the  citizens  of  both 
countries. 

While  the  struggle  for  neutral  rights  was  in  progress,  the 
Spanish  colonies  in  America  began  one  after  another  to  declare 
their  independence.  In  this  movement  the  United  States 
instinctively  felt  a  deep  concern ;  yet  the  government,  adhering 
to  its  policy  of  non-intervention,  pursued  a  neutral  course  so 
long  as  the  contest  was  confined  to  the  original  parties.  But 
in  time  a  new  situation  arose.  In  the  summer  of  1823  the 
Continental  powers  of  Europe,  composing  the  Holy  Alliance, 
having  intervened  to  restore  absolute  government  in  Spain, 
gave  notice  to  Great  Britain  of  a  design  to  call  a  congress 
with  a  view  to  concert  measures  for  putting  an  end  to  the 

1  International  Arbitrations,  V.  4851. 

2  "  A  river  that  passes  through  or  washes  the  territory  of  two  or  more 
states  must,  in  respect  to  its  navigable  uses,  be  considered   as  common  to 
all   the   nations  who  inhabit  its  banks,  as  a  free  gift  flowing  from  the 
bounty  of  Heaven,  intended  for  all  whose  lots  are  cast  upon  its  borders." 
(Mr.  Clay,  Sec.  of  State,  to  Mr.  Gallatin,  June  19,  1826,  Am.  State  Papers, 
For.  Rel.  V.  763.) 


15 

revolutionary  governments  in  Spanish  America.  At  this 
time  Lord  Castlereagh,  who  was  favorably  disposed  to  the  alli- 
ance, had  been  succeeded  in  the  conduct  of  the  foreign  affairs 
of  England  by  George  Canning,  who  reflected  the  popular 
opposition  to  the  policy  of  the  allied  powers.  The  United 
States,  acting  upon  its  principle  that  independence  should  be 
acknowledged  when  it  is  established  as  a  fact,  had  then  recog- 
nized the  Spanish- American  governments.  Great  Britain  had 
not  taken  this  step ;  but  English  merchants,  like  those  of  the 
United  States,  had  developed  with  the  countries  in  question  a 
large  trade  which  their  restoration  to  a  colonial  condition 
would,  under  the  exclusive  system  then  in  vogue,  cut  off  and 
destroy.  Canning  therefore  lost  no  time  in  sounding  Mr.  Rush, 
then  United  States  minister  at  L'ondon,  as  to  the  possibility  of 
a  joint  declaration  by  the  two  governments  against  the  inter- 
vention of  the  allies  in  Spanish  America.  When  this  sugges- 
tion was  reported,  President  Monroe  hastened  to  take  counsel 
upon  it.  The  opinions  of  Jefferson  and  Madison  were  strongly 
expressed  and  altogether  favorable.  In  the  cabinet,  Mr.  Calhoun, 
who  also  urged  the  importance  of  action,  inclined  to  invest 
Mr.  Rush  with  discretionary  powers.  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams, 
however,  maintained  that,  as  we  had  acknowledged  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  Spanish- American  states,  joint  action  could 
be  taken  only  on  that  basis,  and  that  the  declarations  of  the  two 
governments  should  therefore  be  made  separately.  This  view 
prevailed.  Canning,  in  fact,  without  awaiting  the  decision  of  the 
United  States,  advised  the  French  Ambassador,  on  the  9th  of 
October,  1823,  that  while  Great  Britain  would  remain  "neutral" 
in  any  war  between  Spain  and  her  colonies,  the  "junction"  of 
any  foreign  power  with  Spain  against  the  colonies  would  be 
viewed  as  presenting  "entirely  a  new  question,"  upon  which 
Great  Britain  "must  take  such  decision"  as  her  interests 
"might  require."1  The  announcement  of  the  United  States 
went  further.  President  Monroe,  in  his  annual  message  of 
December  2,  1823,  declared  that  any  attempt  on  the  part  of 
1  Annual  Register,  1824,  p.  485. 


16 

the  allied  powers  to  extend  their  system  to  any  portion  of  this 
hemisphere  would  be  considered  as  "  dangerous  to  our  peace 
and  safety,"  and  that  any  interposition  by  any  European  power 
in  the  affairs  of  the  governments  whose  independence  we  had 
acknowledged,  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them  or  controll- 
ing in  any  other  manner  their  destiny,  could  be  viewed  in  no 
other  light  than  as  "  the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  dispo- 
sition towards  the  United  States."  In  the  same  message  there 
was  another  declaration,  made  with  reference  to  territorial  dis- 
putes on  the  northwest  coast,  that  "  the  American  continents, 
by  the  free  and  independent  condition  which  they  have  assumed 
and  maintained,  are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects 
for  future  colonization  by  any  European  powers."  These 
declarations,  under  the  name  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  embody 
a  cardinal  principle  of  American  Diplomacy.  As  a  protest 
against  the  political  intervention  of  Europe  and  the  extension 
of  European  dominion  in  this  hemisphere,  they  found  a  ready 
lodgement  in  the  hearts  of  the  American  people ;  and,  thus 
interpreted  and  sustained,  they  still  stand,  as  on  memorable 
occasions  they  have  stood  heretofore,  as  a  guarantee  of  the 
independence  of  governments  and  the  freedom  of  commerce. 

Mr.  Adams,  in  his  meditations  on  the  question  of  Spanish 
America,  reasoned  thus:  "Considering  the  South  Americans 
as  independent  nations,  they  themselves,  and  no  other  nation, 
had  the  right  to  dispose  of  their  condition  ;  we  have  no  right 
to  dispose  of  them,  either  alone  or  in  conjunction  with  other 
nations ;  neither  have  any  other  nations  the  right  of  disposing 
of  them  without  their  consent."1  This  principle,  coeval  with 
the  American  Republic,  has  also  been  the  guide  of  our  policy 
in  the  far  East.  Early  on  the  scene  in  China,  and  the  first 
to  enter  into  treaties  with  Japan  and  Korea,  the  United  States 
has  steadfastly  sought  the  preservation  of  their  independence 
and  territorial  integrity,  not  only  as  a  thing  just  and  exped- 
ient in  itself,  but  also  as  the  logical  foundation  of  the  system 
of  trade  equality  latterly  denoted  by  the  phrase  "open  door." 

1  Memoirs,  VI.  186. 


17 

Especially  is  this  true  of  those  populous  countries,  China  and 
Japan,  our  interest  in  which  is  not  lessened  by  the  fact  that 
they  have,  by  our  acquisition  of  the  Philippines,  become  our 
near  neighbors.1  Japan,  coherent  and  aspiring,  has  at  length 
been  emancipated.  China,  disorganized  and  rent  by  internal 
disorders,  portions  of  her  territory  occupied  by  foreign  powers 
and  the  rest  shadowed  by  spheres  of  influence,  suggests  an  un- 
certain future.  The  United  States  lately  obtained  from  the 
powers  an  engagement  to  observe  throughout  the  Empire  the 
principle  of  commercial  equality.  Its  policy  in  the  grave 
crisis  that  has  since  arisen  is  expressed  in  the  circular  issued 
by  the  Secretary  of  State  on  the  3rd  of  July  last.  After 
stating  the  President's  purpose  to  act  concurrently  with  the 
other  powers,  in  the  immediate  protection  of  American  inter- 
ests and  the  restoration  of  order,  Mr.  Hay  in  that  circular 
declares  that  as  to  the  future  "the  policy  of  the  government  of 
the  United  States  is  to  seek  a  solution  which  may  bring  about 
permanent  safety  and  peace  to  China,  preserve  Chinese  terri- 
torial and  administrative  entity,  protect  all  rights  guaranteed 
to  friendly  powers  by  treaty  and  international  law,  and  safe- 
guard for  the  world  the  principle  of  equal  and  impartial  trade 
with  all  parts  of  the  Chinese  Empire." 

In  a  sketch  of  American  diplomacy  during  the  past  hundred 
years  it  is  necessary  to  refer  to  the  attitude  of  the  government 
on  certain  questions  that  specially  affect  the  rights  of  individ- 
uals. The  Declaration  of  Independence  enumerates,  as  among 
the  "unalienable  rights"  with  which  "all  men"  are  "endowed 
by  their  Creator,"  "  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness." 
Whether  these  comprehended,  incidentally,  the  right  of  the 
individual  to  renounce  his  allegiance  at  will,  is  a  question  on 
which  opinions  differed.  The  courts  of  the  United  States, 
prior  to  1868,  accepting  the  doctrine  of  the  common  law, 

1  Oar  treaty  with  China  of  June  18,  1858,  provides  (Art.  I.)  that  "if  any 
other  nation  shou  d  act  unjustly  or  oppressively,  the  United  States  will  exert 
their  good  offices,  on  being  informed  of  the  case,  to  brin^  about  an  amica- 
ble arrangement  of  the  question,  thus  showing  their  friendly  feelings." 


18 

generally  sustained  the  negative ; l  and  the  utterances  of  the 
executive  department,  even  down  to  1853,  were  by  no  means 
consistent.  Mr.  Buchanan,  however,  as  Secretary  of  State, 
under  the  administration  of  Polk,  broadly  maintained  the 
affirmative ;  and  Mr.  Cass  in  1859  asserted  that  "  the  moment 
a  foreigner  becomes  naturalized  his  allegiance  to  his  native 
country  is  severed  forever.  He  experiences  a  new  political 
birth.  *  *  *  Should  he  return  to  his  native  country  he  returns 
as  an  American  citizen,  and  in  no  other  character."  Congress 
in  1868  declared  "the  right  of  expatriation"  to  be  "a  natural 
and  inherent  right  of  all  people,  indispensable  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  right  of  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness," 
and  pronounced  "  any  declaration,  instruction,  opinion,  order 
or  decision  of  any  officers  of  this  government  which  denies, 
restricts,  impairs,  or  questions  the  right  of  expatriation,"  to  be 
"  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  this  govern- 
ment."2 Prior  to  the  passage  of  this  act,  George  Bancroft 
concluded  with  the  North  German  Union  the  first  treaty  of 
naturalization.3  He  made  similar  treaties  with  Baden,4 
Bavaria,5  and  Hesse.6  Before  the  end  of  1872,  treaties  on 
the  same  subject  were  entered  into  with  Austria-Hungary,7 
Belgium,8  Denmark,9  Ecuador,10  Great  Britain,11  Mexico,12  and 
Sweden  and  Norway.13  No  treaty  has  since  been  added  to  the 

1  2  Kent's  Com.  49;  Inglis  v.  The  Trustees  of  the  Sailor's  Snug  Har- 
bour, 3  Pet.  99;   Shanks  v.  Dupont,  3  Pet.  242  ;  The  Santissima  Trinidad, 
7  Wheat.  283  ;  Talbot  v.  Janson,  3  Dall.  133;  Portier  v.  LeKoy,  1  Yeates 
(Penn.)  371.     Contra,  Alsberry  v.  Hawkins,  9  Dana  178. 

2  Act  of  July  27,  1868, 15  Stats,  at  L.  223;  B.  S.  Sec.  1999. 

3  February  22,  1868. 

4  July  19,  1868. 

5  May  26,  1868. 

6  August  1,  1868. 
*  Sept.  20,  1870. 

8  November  16,  1870. 

9  July  20,  1872. 

10  May  6,  1872. 

11  May  13,1870. 

12  July  10,  1868. 

13  May  26,  1869. 


19 

list.  This  fact  may  be  explained  not  only  by  an  unreadiness 
on  the  part  of  various  governments  to  accept  a  compliance 
with  the  naturalization  laws  of  the  United  States  as  a  sufficient 
act  of  expatriation,  but  also  by  the  exigencies  of  military 
service  and  the  numerous  cases  in  which  it  has  been  alleged 
that  the  treaties  were  abused  for  the  purpose  of  evading 
military  duty. 

In  the  development  of  the  modern  process  of  extradition, 
the  credit  of  the  initiative  belongs  to  France.  But,  beginning 
with  the  Webster- Ashbur ton  treaty,  the  United  States,  at  an 
important  stage  in  the  history  of  the  system,  actively  contrib- 
uted to  its  growth  by  the  conclusion  of  numerous  conventions.1 
We  cannot  afford,  however,  to  rest  on  our  laurels.  In  recent 
times  other  nations,  and  particularly  Great  Britain  since  1870, 
observing  the  propensity  of  criminals  to  utilize  improved  facil- 
ities of  travel,  have,  by  legislation  as  well  as  negotiation, 
vastly  increased  the  efficiency  of  the  system.  It  will  therefore 
be  necessary,  if  we  would  fulfill  the  promise  of  our  -past  and 
retain  a  place  in  the  front  rank,  steadily  to  multiply  our  treat- 
ies and  enlarge  their  scope.  No  innovation  in  the  practice  of 
nations  has  ever  more  completely  discredited  the  direful  pre- 
dictions of  its  adversaries  than  that  of  surrendering  fugitives 
from  justice. 

The  United  States,  acknowledging  the  force  and  supremacy 
of  law,  has  given  the  weight  of  its  example  to  the  employ- 
ment of  arbitration  as  a  means  of  settling  international  disputes 
not  only  as  to  the  rights  of  individuals  but  also  as  to  the  rights 
of  nations.  If  asked  for  a  proof  of  this  statement,  we  may 
point  to  the  fifty-three  executed  arbitral  agreements  to  which, 

1  Art.  XXVII.  of  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  of  1794,  commonly 
called  the  Jay  treaty,  required  the  surrender  of  fugitives  charged  with 
murder  or  forgery,  but  it  was  for  the  most  part  ineffective  and  expired  by 
limitation  in  1808.  The  Webster- A shburton  treaty,  signed  Aug.  9, 1842, 
provided  (Art.  X.)  for  extradition  for  any  of  seven  offences.  Treaties  with 
other  countries  were  soon  afterwards  made,  ten  being  concluded  while 
William  L.  Marcy  was  Secretary  of  State,  during  the  administration  of 
Pierce. 


20 

during  the  past  hundred  years,  the  United  States  has  been  a 
party ;  to  the  twelve  cases  in  which  the  President,  or  some  one 
appointed  or  approved  by  him,  has  acted  as  arbitrator  or 
umpire;  and  to  the  five  pending  proceedings  in  which  the 
government  is  now  directly  concerned.1  In  many  of  these 
arbitrations  questions  of  national  right  of  the  highest  moment, 
sometimes  expressed  in  the  terms  of  the  agreement,  but  often 
lurking  in  the  general  phrases  of  a  claims  convention,  have 
been  submitted  to  judgment.  The  opinion  of  the  world  as  to 
the  general  result  is  attested  by  recent  efforts  to  establish  a 
permanent  system  of  arbitration,  as  proposed  in  the  plan  of 
the  International  American  Conference,  in  the  unratified 
treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and  in 
the  pending  agreement  lately  adopted  at  the  Hague. 

We  speak  of  the  United  States ;  and  in  its  original  design 
and  purpose  it  still  endures,  and  so  may  it  endure  forever ! 
But,  in  the  history  of  its  diplomacy  during  the  past  hundred 
years,  there  is  nothing  more  striking  than  the  record  of  the 
national  expansion.  First  Louisiana,2  then  the  Floridas,3  then 
Texas,4  next  a  half  of  Oregon,5  soon  afterwards  California  and 
New  Mexico,6  and  later  the  Gadsden  purchase,7  it  was  no  mere 
figment  of  the  poetic  fancy  that  depicted  the  nation's  pioneer 
as  going 

"*    *    *    joyful  on  his  way, 
To  wed  Penobscot's  waters  to  San  Francisco's  bay." 

Not  only  extensive  provinces,  which  had  "  languished  for 
three  centuries  under  the  leaden  sway  of  a  stationary  system," 
but  also  vast  regions  in  whose  wild  solitudes  the  voices  of 
nature  spoke  only  to  barbarian  ears,  were  rescued  from  the 

1  See  International  Arbitrations,  6  vols.  ;  also,  the  note  at  the  end  of 
this  address. 

2  Treaty  with  France,  April  30,  1803. 

8  Treaty  with  Spain,  February  22,  1819. 

4  Joint  Resolutions  of  March  1  and  December  29,  1845. 

5  Treaty  with  Great  Britain,  June  15,  1846. 

6  Treaty  with  Mexico,  February  2,  1848. 

7  Treaty  with  Mexico,  December  30,  1853. 


21 

dominion  of  misfortune  and  neglect,  and  dedicated  to  liberty 
and  law  and  progress.  And  still  the  national  advance  con- 
tinued. Distant  Alaska,  far  reaching  in  its  continental  and 
insular  dimensions,  was  added  to  the  national  domain  ;T  the 
Hawaiian  Islands,  long  an  object  of  special  protection,  were  at 
length  annexed  ;2  and  Cuba,  as  the  events  of  a  century  had 
foreshadowed,  was  detached  from  the  Spanish  crown,  while  by 
the  same  act  all  other  Spanish  islands  in  the  West  Indies, 
together  with  the  Philippines  and  Guam  in  the  Pacific,  were 
ceded  to  the  United  States.3  By  a  treaty  since  made,  Ger- 
many and  Great  Britain  renounce  in  favor  of  the  United  States 
all  their  rights  of  possession  or  jurisdiction  as  to  Tutuila  and 
certain  other  islands  in  Samoa.4 

The  record  of  the  century  lies  before  us.  We  survey  it  per- 
haps with  exultation,  but  we  should  not  forget  its  graver  mean- 
ing. With  the  growth  of  power  and  the  extension  of  boun- 
daries, there  has  come  an  increase  of  national  responsibilities. 
The  manner  in  which  we  shall  discharge  them  will  be  the  test 
of  our  virtue.  To-day,  reviewing  the  achievements  of  a  hun- 
dred years,  we  pay  our  tribute  to  the  wisdom,  the  foresight, 
the  lofty  conceptions  and  generous  policies  of  the  men  who 
gave  to  our  diplomacy  its  first  impulse.  It  remains  for  us  to 
carry  forward,  as  our  predecessors  have  carried  forward,  the 
great  work  thus  begun,  so  that  at  the  close  of  another  century 
the  cause  of  free  government,  free  commerce  and  free  seas  may 
still  find  in  the  United  States  a  champion. 

1  Treaty  with  Kussia,  March  30,  1867. 

2  Joint  Resolution,  July  7,  1898. 

3  Treaty  with  Spain,  December  10,  1898. 
*  December  2,  1899. 


22 

NOTE  ON  INTERNATIONAL  ARBITRATIONS.  —  The  arbitrations  of  the 
United  States,  the  dates,  unless  otherwise  stated,  being  those  of  the  arbi- 
tral agreements,  are  as  follows  : 

Brazil,  Whale  Ship  Canada,  1870.— Chile :  Case  of  the  "  Macedonian," 
1858;  claims,  1892;  total,  2.— China,  the  Ashmore  Fishery,  1884.— 
Colombia:  Panama  Riot  and  other  claims,  1857;  same  subject,  1864; 
Montijo  case,  1874;  total,  3. — Costa  Bica,  claims,  1860. — Denmark, 
Carlos  Butterfield  claims,  1888.— Ecuador:  claims,  1862;  Santos  case, 
1893;  total,  2.— France,  claims,  1880.— Great  Britain:  St.  Croix  Kiver, 
1794 ;  Islands  in  Bay  of  Fundy,  1814 ;  N.  E.  Boundary,  1814 ;  same  sub- 
ject, 1827;  Eiver  and  Lake  boundary,  1814;  Lake  and  Land  boundary, 
1814 ;  San  Juan  boundary^l871 ;  Hudson's  Bay  Co.  claims,  1863 ;  Impedi- 
ments to  Kecovery  of  Debts,  1794;  Neutral  Rights  and  Duties,  1794; 
Compensation  for  Slaves,  1818;  same  subject,  1822;  same  subject,  1822; 
claims,  1853;  Reserved  Fisheries,  1854;  Alabama  claims,  1871;  Civil 
War  claims,  1871 ;  Fisheries,  1871 ;  Fur  Seals,  1892;  Bering  Sea  Damage 
claims,  1896;  total,  20.— Hay ti:  Pelletier  and  Lazare  cases,  1884;  claims, 
1885;  Van  Bokkelen  case,  1888;  total,  3.— Mexico:  claims,  1839;  claims, 
1868  ;  Oberlander  case,  1897  ;  total,  3.— Nicaragua,  claims,  1900.— Para- 
guay, United  States  and  Paraguay  Navigation  Co.,  1859.  -  Peru  :  cases  of 
the  Georgianna  and  Lizzie  Thompson,  1862 ;  claims,  1863  ;  claims,  1868 ; 
MacCord  case,  1898;  total,  4.— Pjortugal:  Brig  "General  Armstrong,"  1851; 
Delagoa  Bay  Railway,  1891 ;  total,  2.— Salvador,  Savage  claim,  1864.— 
San  Domingo,  Ozama  Bridge  case,  1897. — Siam :  Kellett  case,  1897; 
Cheek  case,  1897;  total,  2.  -  Spain:  Spoliations,  1795;  Case  of  the  "Colo- 
nel Lloyd  Aspinwall,"  1870 ;  Cuban  claims,  1871 ;  case  of  the  Masonic, 
1880;  total,  4.— Venezuela:  claims,  1866;  claims,  1885;  Venezuela 
Steam  Transportation  Co.,  1892;  total,  3.— Grand  total,  j>7,  all  but  4  since 
1800. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  has  acted  as  arbitrator  in  the  follow- 
ing cases :  Argentine  Republic  and  Brazil,  Misiones  boundary,  1889 ; 
Argentine  Republic  and  Paraguay,  Middle  Chaco  territory,  1876  ;  Colom- 
bia and  Italy,  Cerruti  case,  1894;  Costa  Rica  and  Nicaragua,  boundary, 
1886;  Great  Britain  and  Portugal,  Island  of  Bulama,  1869.— Total,  5. 

Ministers  of  the  United  States  have  acted  as  arbitrator  or  umpire  in  the 
following  cases:  Argentine  Republic  and  Chile,  boundary,  1896;  Chile 
and  Peru,  disputed  accounts,  1874;  Great  Britain  and  Brazil,  Dundonald 
claim,  1873 ;  Great  Britain  and  Colombia,  Cotesworth  and  Powell  claim, 
1872;  Great  Britain  and  Honduras,  claims,  1859;  Italy  and  Switzerland, 
Cravairola  boundary,  1873.— Total,  6. 

Under  the  treaty  between  Costa  Rica  and  Nicaragua  of  1896,  for  the 
final  settlement  of  their  boundary,  the  President  of  the  United  States 
appointed  Gen.  E.  P.  Alexander,  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  as 
engineer-umpire. 


23 

Arbitrations  are  now  pending  between  the  United  States  and  other 
powers  :?s  follows:  Chile,  claims,  1897;  Germany  and  Great  Britain, 
Samoan  claims,  1899;  Guatemala,  May  claim,  1900;  Hayti,  Metzger 
case,  1899 ;  Russia,  Bering  Sea  seizures,  1900.— Total,  5. 

The  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico  of  Feb.  2,  1848,  con- 
tains (Art.  xxi)  a  general  clause  as  to  arbitration ;  and  the  game  principle 
is  exemplified  in  the  treaties  relating  to  the  boundary  between  the  two 
countries.  (Int.  Arbitrations,  II.  1287,  1358.) 

Great  Britain,  besides  20  with  the  United  States  and  4  in  which  the 
President  or  a  minister  of  the  United  States  has  participated,  has  had 
arbitrations  with  other  powers,  as  follows :  Argentine  Eepublic,  claims, 
1858;  closure  of  port  of  Montevideo,  1864. — Belgium,  Ben  Tillett  case, 
1897.— Brazil,  maritime  captures,  1829;  claims,  1858;  case  of  the  "Forte," 
1862.— Buenos  Ayres,  maritime  spoliations,  1830.— Chile,  claims,  1883; 
claims,  1893. — Colombia,  Punchard  &  Co.  claim,  1896. — France,  Porten- 
dic  claims,  1842 ;  Mineral  Oil  claims,  1873 ;  Grefiiihle  Concessions,  1893 
(award).— Germany,  Island  of  Lamu,  1889.— Greece,  claims,  1850.— Hayli, 
claims,  1890. — Liberia,  boundary,  1871. — Mexico,  claims,  1866. — Nether- 
lands, case  of  the  Costa  Rica  Packet,  1895. — Nicaragua,  Mosquito  Indians, 
1881  (award);  claims,  1895.— Peru,  White  claim,  3864  (award).— Portu- 
gal, claims,  1840;  Croft  case,  1856  (award);  Yuille  and  Shortridge 
claim,  1861  (award) ;  territory  on  E.  coast  of  Africa,  1872;  Delagoa  Bay 
Railway,  1891 ;  Manica  boundary,  1895. — South  African  Republic,  bound- 
ary, 1884.— Spain,  Schooner  Mermaid,  1868 ;  marine  tort,  1887.— Vene- 
zuela, claims,  1868  ;  British  Guiana  boundary,  1697.— Total,  33. 

France,  during  the  past  hundred  years,  has  had  arbitrations,  besides  the  4 
already  mentioned,  as  follows :  Allied  Powers,  claims,  1814.— Chile,  claims, 
1882 ;  claims,  1895.— Chile  and  Peru,  guano  funds,  1894.— Hayti,  claims, 
1891  (or  18S2).— Mexico,  claims,  1839.— Netherlands,  interest  on  the 
Dutch  Debt,  1815;  Guiana  boundary,  1888. — Nicaragua,  case  of  the 
Phare,  1879. — Spain,  question  of  prize,  1851. — Venezuela,  claims,  1864; 
Fabiani  case,  1891.— Total,  12. 

Other  arbitrations  between  various  countries  may  be  enumerated  as 
follows:  Argentine  Republic  and  Chile,  boundary,  1896;  Austria  and 
other  Powers,  as  to  Duchy  of  Bovillon,  1815 ;  Austria  and  other  Powers, 
as  to  cantons  of  Tessin  and  Uri,  1815 ;  Austria-Hungary  and  Chile, 
claims,  1885;  Belgium  and  Chile,  claims,  1884;  Chile  and  Italy,  claims, 
1882 ;  Chile  and  Sweden  and  Norway,  claims,  1895 ;  Chile  and  Switzer- 
land, claims,  1886  ;  China  and  Japan,  killing  of  a  Japanese  in  Formosa, 
1876  (about) ;  Colombia  and  Costa  Rica,  boundary,  1880-1897 ;  Colombia, 
Ecuador  and  Peru,  boundary,  1894 ;  Colombia  and  Venezuela,  1881-1886  ; 
Khedive  of  Egypt  and  M.  de  Lesseps,  accounts,  1864;  Egjpt  and  Foreign 
Powers,  claims,  1883 ;  Germany  and  Chile,  claims,  1884 ;  Germany  and 
Hayti,  1895  ;  Hayti  and  San  Domingo,  boundary,  1895  (about) ;  Italy  and 
Brazil,  claims,  1896;  Italy  and  Persia,  customs  duties,  1890;  Italy  and 


24 

Portugal,  Lavarello  case,  1892 ;  Japan  and  Peru,  case  of  the  "  Maria  Luz," 
1873;  Mexico  and  Guatemala,  boundary,  1882;  Netherlands  and  Domini- 
can Kepublic,  case  of  the  "Havana  Packet,"  1881;  Netherlands  and 
Venezuela,  Aves  Islands,  1865  (award)  ;  Peru  and  Bolivia,  question  of 
salute  to  flag,  1895 ;  arbitration  between  two  African  tribes  as  to  the  use 
of  wells,  1887.— Total,  26. 

The  whole  number  of  international  arbitrations  during  the  present  cen- 
tury, exclusive  of  cases  now  pending  and  incomplete,  is,  according  to  the 
above  list,  136. 

It  should  be  observed  that  in  certain  lists  that  have  lately  been  circu- 
lated there  have  been  included  as  arbitrations  not  only  numerous  cases  of 
mediation,  but  also  ordinary  boundary  surveys,  domestic  commissions, 
direct  treaty  settlements,  and  even  examples  of  pure  diplomatic  negotia- 
tion, such  as  the  Anglo-American  joint  commission  of  1898-99.  Such  lists 
are  to  be  deprecated.  While  they  tend  to  mislead  impulsive  and  undis- 
criminating  writers,  they  also  invite  attack. 


THIS  BO-~ 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


'AR  2, 5  1975     X 


REC'D  LD 


lay' 


REC.  CIR.     MAR  1  8  '75 


LD  21A-50m-9,'58 
(6889slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


LIBRARY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  BEFORE  CLOSING  TIME 
ON  LAST  DATE  STAMPED  BELOW 


USE 

896~4 


;    ' 


23^-121* 


LD  62A-20m-9,'63 
(E709slO)9412A 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


